No, I think that people considered legally old enough to create human life and to take full responsibility for raising a child are old enough to vote.
The fact that 16-year olds can have sex, and produce babies, legally is more about bowing to the inevitable than considering whether they are responsible enough for it to be a good idea.
Just 14% agree with Corbyn's position at the weekend on shoot to kill for ISIS terrorists, 7 in 10 disagree (ComRes/D Mail)
I would love to know what the 14% who agree with Corbyn think the police should do when faced with murderous Jihadists wielding assault rifles and suicide vests. What is the hypothetical other option? I'm struggling to come up with one that wouldn't be likely to lead to even more deaths.
I see the very strong possibility that Cameron will be forced to accept the fact of a UN resolution even if he doesn't like it, the French are by-passing him and are going to table one with the support of the americans and the russians. Cameron will get stuck between accepting the UN or vetoing an anti-ISIS resolution by France, he will of course be forced to let it pass.
Once a UN resolution passes Corbyn and the MP's will be on board and Cameron would not be able to milk the issue for political reasons anymore.
Cameron would be pleased for a UN resolution. Don't let your kipper type mentality cloud your judgement.
No, I think that people considered legally old enough to create human life and to take full responsibility for raising a child are old enough to vote.
The fact that 16-year olds can have sex, and produce babies, legally is more about bowing to the inevitable than considering whether they are responsible enough for it to be a good idea.
Kids can and do have babies before they are 16, but they are not held responsible for them even if they are allowed to keep them. That changes at 16. There is no greater responsibility than raising a child and we allow 16 year olds to do it.
Kids can and do have babies before they are 16, but they are not held responsible for them even if they are allowed to keep them. That changes at 16. There is no greater responsibility than raising a child and we allow 16 year olds to do it.
Yes, but so what? The alternative is to take the baby away from its mother.
Faced with two sub-optimalities - a mother too young to be ideally suited to bring up the baby, and separating the two, in defiance of natural bonds - we choose the former. Quite rightly too; however, this is completely irrelevant to the question of voting age, where such a dilemma doesn't exist.
How useful is the Almanac of American Politics vs Google/Wiki?
~£75 is a lot of money...
I always used to buy the Times Guide to the House of Commons but it's so expensive now and the quality is not what it used to be that I haven't bought it this time.
Kids can and do have babies before they are 16, but they are not held responsible for them even if they are allowed to keep them. That changes at 16. There is no greater responsibility than raising a child and we allow 16 year olds to do it.
Yes, but so what? The alternative is to take the baby away from its mother.
Faced with two sub-optimalities - a mother too young to be ideally suited to bring up the baby, and separating the two, in defiance of natural bonds - we choose the former. Quite rightly too; however, this is completely irrelevant to the question of voting age, where such a dilemma doesn't exist.
The alternative is not to take the child away. That's not what happens to under-16s. As a society we have actively decided that things change at 16, not 17 or 18.
While looking for something else, came across this surprising snippet
Adoption
If you are under the age of 18, you can be adopted if you are not married or in a registered civil partnership. As a child, you will have little say over who adopts you, but you should be consulted by the adoption agency or social services department involved in the adoption.
The alternative is not to take the child away. That's not what happens to under-16s. As a society we have actively decided that things change at 16, not 17 or 18.
So what? Your point makes no sense. The babies turn up, whether we approve or not. There's no option of decreeing that they don't. It bears no relation whatsoever to the question of voting age.
What does bear some relation is contract law. How can it make sense to say that a child is not old enough to enter into a contract, but is old enough to vote?
No, I think that people considered legally old enough to create human life and to take full responsibility for raising a child are old enough to vote.
The fact that 16-year olds can have sex, and produce babies, legally is more about bowing to the inevitable than considering whether they are responsible enough for it to be a good idea.
Kids can and do have babies before they are 16, but they are not held responsible for them even if they are allowed to keep them. That changes at 16. There is no greater responsibility than raising a child and we allow 16 year olds to do it.
This is a silly avenue of an argument. - We allow it because we have little choice, other than confiscating their child and putting it into the care of an adult relative or an institution, - but we do not encourage children at 16 to have these children because they are all too often unprepared mentally, physically or financially to cope with raising a child.
Kids can and do have babies before they are 16, but they are not held responsible for them even if they are allowed to keep them. That changes at 16. There is no greater responsibility than raising a child and we allow 16 year olds to do it.
Yes, but so what? The alternative is to take the baby away from its mother.
Faced with two sub-optimalities - a mother too young to be ideally suited to bring up the baby, and separating the two, in defiance of natural bonds - we choose the former. Quite rightly too; however, this is completely irrelevant to the question of voting age, where such a dilemma doesn't exist.
Correct. These arguments attempting to justify voting at 16 are pathetic beyond belief. The Lords have moved beyond a joke. I suppose we should not be surprised when we see it is driven by loopy LD cussedness.
No, I think that people considered legally old enough to create human life and to take full responsibility for raising a child are old enough to vote.
The fact that 16-year olds can have sex, and produce babies, legally is more about bowing to the inevitable than considering whether they are responsible enough for it to be a good idea.
Kids can and do have babies before they are 16, but they are not held responsible for them even if they are allowed to keep them. That changes at 16. There is no greater responsibility than raising a child and we allow 16 year olds to do it.
Yes, we allow 16 year olds to have babies. But it is uncommon, and when it does happen, it is not always the result of well-informed life-style choices. Wider society would probably counsel them to wait a while.
Because they CAN, it is a poor argument for saying all should have the vote at 16. Personally, I'm not of sufficiently strong views to earn the title "backwoodsman" on this. But for the House of Lords to be creating legislation that was against the will of those who voted for the Conservative manifesto takes them onto very worrying ground.
Back on the 14th I noted 4 points of interest one of which was investigating Spain as a possible entrance/exit/transit route for the attack perpetrators.
Salah Abdeslam, believed to be one of the Paris triggermen, stopped then let go on the France/Belgian border is reportedly the subject of a manhunt in Spain. The police have a car registration.
More significantly the swathe of arrests and imminent foiled attacks should be a great worry to the Western & Northern European networks inspired by & directed by IS. It may suggest its time to go to ground.
It is also a worry for the rest of us, because they might do the opposite.
There is suspicion that any UK-based actors don't have the very direct links with each other that many of the runarounds in France/Germany/Benelux/Spain etc do. The UK based suspects may be their own little island network to some extent. IS in their latest video named France, the US, Australia, Germany & the UK as the targets in line. France has been hit, Germany nearly, leaving the other three.
@ReggieCide On an online political form, I've only thought about getting my ideas/views across in a coherent way. If you're interested in a grammatically correct thesis, check my uni essays. On the army situation, I'm not wrong; girls can join the army. Needing parental consent still means you can join the army. And as for 'looking foolish', tbqh, given your diatribes at me in recently, I don't really think I could care less if whatever you thought of me. @SouthamObserver, good point.
The grammar on the particular post made it virtually intelligible. If your "uni" essays are of the same standard then, in the spirit of being helpful, I would suggest that you try harder.
That I'm in my third year now, should give you an answer in regard to the standard of my essays, and whether they are intelligible or not.
Well, that depends on whether you're on a reasonably decent course at a good university, or one of the rebadged ones that was formerly something hopeless such as the 'Spunkbridge College of Metalwork'.
My course is Politics & History. I'm reluctant to say what uni I go to (I don't really want my friends to know I go on a political betting site tbh), but it's in London, and within the top 45 unis in the country. So I hope that's okay with the PBers.
The alternative is not to take the child away. That's not what happens to under-16s. As a society we have actively decided that things change at 16, not 17 or 18.
So what? Your point makes no sense. The babies turn up, whether we approve or not. There's no option of decreeing that they don't. It bears no relation whatsoever to the question of voting age.
What does bear some relation is contract law. How can it make sense to say that a child is not old enough to enter into a contract, but is old enough to vote?
The alternative is not to take the child away. That's not what happens to under-16s. As a society we have actively decided that things change at 16, not 17 or 18.
So what? Your point makes no sense. The babies turn up, whether we approve or not. There's no option of decreeing that they don't. It bears no relation whatsoever to the question of voting age.
What does bear some relation is contract law. How can it make sense to say that a child is not old enough to enter into a contract, but is old enough to vote?
It makes as much sense to me as the fact that a 16 year old is considered old enough to take full legal responsibility for the care of a child but not responsible enough to vote.
IS in their latest video named France, the US, Australia, Germany & the UK as the targets in line. France has been hit, Germany nearly, leaving the other three.
There is suspicion that the UK may have been the initial target of the Sinai plane bomb:
@ReggieCide On an online political form, I've only thought about getting my ideas/views across in a coherent way. If you're interested in a grammatically correct thesis, check my uni essays. On the army situation, I'm not wrong; girls can join the army. Needing parental consent still means you can join the army. And as for 'looking foolish', tbqh, given your diatribes at me in recently, I don't really think I could care less if whatever you thought of me. @SouthamObserver, good point.
The grammar on the particular post made it virtually intelligible. If your "uni" essays are of the same standard then, in the spirit of being helpful, I would suggest that you try harder.
That I'm in my third year now, should give you an answer in regard to the standard of my essays, and whether they are intelligible or not.
Well, that depends on whether you're on a reasonably decent course at a good university, or one of the rebadged ones that was formerly something hopeless such as the 'Spunkbridge College of Metalwork'.
My course is Politics & History. I'm reluctant to say what uni I go to (I don't really want my friends to know I go on a political betting site tbh), but it's in London, and within the top 45 unis in the country. So I hope that's okay with the PBers.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Illegitimi non carborundum is a mock-Latin aphorism meaning "Don't let the bastards grind you down".
No, I think that people considered legally old enough to create human life and to take full responsibility for raising a child are old enough to vote.
The fact that 16-year olds can have sex, and produce babies, legally is more about bowing to the inevitable than considering whether they are responsible enough for it to be a good idea.
Kids can and do have babies before they are 16, but they are not held responsible for them even if they are allowed to keep them. That changes at 16. There is no greater responsibility than raising a child and we allow 16 year olds to do it.
Yes, we allow 16 year olds to have babies. But it is uncommon, and when it does happen, it is not always the result of well-informed life-style choices. Wider society would probably counsel them to wait a while.
Because they CAN, it is a poor argument for saying all should have the vote at 16. Personally, I'm not of sufficiently strong views to earn the title "backwoodsman" on this. But for the House of Lords to be creating legislation that was against the will of those who voted for the Conservative manifesto takes them onto very worrying ground.
I agree that the Lords should not have done this, even though I have no problem with extending the franchise. If it is going to happen it has to be done by the Commons.
The alternative is not to take the child away. That's not what happens to under-16s. As a society we have actively decided that things change at 16, not 17 or 18.
So what? Your point makes no sense. The babies turn up, whether we approve or not. There's no option of decreeing that they don't. It bears no relation whatsoever to the question of voting age.
What does bear some relation is contract law. How can it make sense to say that a child is not old enough to enter into a contract, but is old enough to vote?
The alternative is not to take the child away. That's not what happens to under-16s. As a society we have actively decided that things change at 16, not 17 or 18.
So what? Your point makes no sense. The babies turn up, whether we approve or not. There's no option of decreeing that they don't. It bears no relation whatsoever to the question of voting age.
What does bear some relation is contract law. How can it make sense to say that a child is not old enough to enter into a contract, but is old enough to vote?
It makes as much sense to me as the fact that a 16 year old is considered old enough to take full legal responsibility for the care of a child but not responsible enough to vote.
The alternative is not to take the child away. That's not what happens to under-16s. As a society we have actively decided that things change at 16, not 17 or 18.
So what? Your point makes no sense. The babies turn up, whether we approve or not. There's no option of decreeing that they don't. It bears no relation whatsoever to the question of voting age.
What does bear some relation is contract law. How can it make sense to say that a child is not old enough to enter into a contract, but is old enough to vote?
The alternative is not to take the child away. That's not what happens to under-16s. As a society we have actively decided that things change at 16, not 17 or 18.
So what? Your point makes no sense. The babies turn up, whether we approve or not. There's no option of decreeing that they don't. It bears no relation whatsoever to the question of voting age.
What does bear some relation is contract law. How can it make sense to say that a child is not old enough to enter into a contract, but is old enough to vote?
It makes as much sense to me as the fact that a 16 year old is considered old enough to take full legal responsibility for the care of a child but not responsible enough to vote.
A person who is a father or mother at age 16 will likely have had illegal under age sex aged 15. Parents at 16 are relatively few and far between. It's a far cry to give voting to all children aged 16.
No, I think that people considered legally old enough to create human life and to take full responsibility for raising a child are old enough to vote.
The fact that 16-year olds can have sex, and produce babies, legally is more about bowing to the inevitable than considering whether they are responsible enough for it to be a good idea.
Kids can and do have babies before they are 16, but they are not held responsible for them even if they are allowed to keep them. That changes at 16. There is no greater responsibility than raising a child and we allow 16 year olds to do it.
Yes, we allow 16 year olds to have babies. But it is uncommon, and when it does happen, it is not always the result of well-informed life-style choices. Wider society would probably counsel them to wait a while.
Because they CAN, it is a poor argument for saying all should have the vote at 16. Personally, I'm not of sufficiently strong views to earn the title "backwoodsman" on this. But for the House of Lords to be creating legislation that was against the will of those who voted for the Conservative manifesto takes them onto very worrying ground.
The house of Lords is full of crass numpties and should be abolished.
How useful is the Almanac of American Politics vs Google/Wiki?
~£75 is a lot of money...
I always used to buy the Times Guide to the House of Commons but it's so expensive now and the quality is not what it used to be that I haven't bought it this time.
I've got a nice (incomplete) collection going back to 1945, plus Ian Dale's reprints of 1910-18 and 1929-35. They can be picked up fairly cheaply (except for 1945).
TBH, with advent of Wikipedia, they are more or less redundant, other than as nice bookcase-fillers...
One of the central attractions of Corbyn to members is that he doesn't lead in the traditional "follow me chaps" way that has become the norm in every party. He believes in debate. Setting up a defence review co-chaired by a supporter and an opponent of Trident makes sense if it's not to be a stitch-up. And the curt instruction to Livingstone to back down over his abusive comment shows he means the civil politics stuff too.
He's clearly not doing well in terms of getting good coverage and I'd quibble over how he puts some issues across. But I'd vote for him again if needed, and so, I think, would the great majority of the 60%. We are nowhere near the point where people feel he's had a fair shot at it.
When he was running for president, FDR asked his Brains Trust to 'weave together' the pro-free trade and pro-tariff positions. It was a nonsensical position economically, but a totally logical one politically. FDR didn't really regard trade as key issue, so wanted to draft an acceptable compromise, even if it made little sense. Illiterate vagueness in a bigger cause is justifiable.
Unfortunately, this isn't a case where such incoherence is useful. First, everyone knows what Corbyn thinks. He's a unilateralist, a passionate and convinced one. He offers a review not because he doesn't have a view, but because pressing his view now would be problematic.
Second, there's no fudge - not even compared to FDR's on free trade. Either you think it's reasonable to have nuclear weapons or you don't. How on earth can Eagle and Livingstone produce a compromise?
This is what is so odd about the Corbyn support. Nick says 'he believes in debate'. I'm sure he does. But he also has very strongly held moral views. If the Labour party adopted a pro-Nuclear position and Jeremy Corbyn was Prime Minister, would Jeremy be willing to follow a Conference motion on the use of nuclear weapons? Of course not. So why debate?
If the party decided for multilateralism, we would be asking the British people to spend billions of pounds on something our leader regarded as fundamentally immoral and would in no circumstance use. So let's not pretend he is merely hoping for guidance from the movement. He isn't. He would never use such weapons and believes them a monstrosity, and as such must see them as a waste of money. How can he tax people to fund it, rather than build housing, or cut taxes?
That's why I don't know what Corbyn having a fair go means. On issues like this, it isn't about him getting a chance to listen and agree a compromise. This is an issue he regards as fundamental to his politics. Rejecting it would be rejecting him. So if you know you disagree, you have to be prepared to reject him as leader. Or he has to be willing to breach his own morality, which he has said he won't do.
No, I think that people considered legally old enough to create human life and to take full responsibility for raising a child are old enough to vote.
The fact that 16-year olds can have sex, and produce babies, legally is more about bowing to the inevitable than considering whether they are responsible enough for it to be a good idea.
Kids can and do have babies before they are 16, but they are not held responsible for them even if they are allowed to keep them. That changes at 16. There is no greater responsibility than raising a child and we allow 16 year olds to do it.
Yes, we allow 16 year olds to have babies. But it is uncommon, and when it does happen, it is not always the result of well-informed life-style choices. Wider society would probably counsel them to wait a while.
Because they CAN, it is a poor argument for saying all should have the vote at 16. Personally, I'm not of sufficiently strong views to earn the title "backwoodsman" on this. But for the House of Lords to be creating legislation that was against the will of those who voted for the Conservative manifesto takes them onto very worrying ground.
The house of Lords is full of crass numpties and should be abolished.
Seeing the House of Lords pontificating on democracy is indeed preposterous.
On the subject of religious extremism, and nuttery, no-one is immune.
In 1997, an American religious freak convinced 38 other people that he was an alien re-incarnation of Jesus, and they needed to evacuate the Earth by committing suicide, to be picked up by a space ship travelling in the wake of comet Hale-Bopp...
Here's one of them giving her farewell message a couple of days before she overdosed on phenobarbitol and put a plastic bag over her head. She abandoned her husband and kids to join this cult. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wNDvFdQvws
Another one of them had been expected by her childhood classmates to become POTUS, or at least State Governor...
On the subject of religious extremism, and nuttery, no-one is immune.
In 1997, an American religious freak convinced 38 other people that he was an alien re-incarnation of Jesus, and they needed to evacuate the Earth by committing suicide, to be picked up by a space ship travelling in the wake of comet Hale-Bopp...
Here's one of them giving her farewell message a couple of days before she overdosed on phenobarbitol and put a plastic bag over her head. She abandoned her husband and kids to join this cult. www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wNDvFdQvws
Another one of them had been expected by her childhood classmates to become POTUS, or at least State Governor...
Did they shoot up people at a Rock concert or blow themselves up outside a football stadium?
On the subject of religious extremism, and nuttery, no-one is immune.
In 1997, an American religious freak convinced 38 other people that he was an alien re-incarnation of Jesus, and they needed to evacuate the Earth by committing suicide, to be picked up by a space ship travelling in the wake of comet Hale-Bopp...
Here's one of them giving her farewell message a couple of days before she overdosed on phenobarbitol and put a plastic bag over her head. She abandoned her husband and kids to join this cult. www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wNDvFdQvws
Another one of them had been expected by her childhood classmates to become POTUS, or at least State Governor...
Did they shoot up people at a Rock concert or blow themselves up outside a football stadium?
No, thank God. But if the asshole they were following had told them to do that, who knows?
Where does your acquaintance think the 132 dead people have gone to? And does your other acquaintance think that 132 people is a handful or does he too think that these deaths have been invented?
As the first acquaintance claimed the whole thing is a hoax he did not accept there are any dead people. The second acquaintance argued there was one, and only one, attack which caused a small number of deaths. He believed that the other attacks, and therefore the bulk of the deaths, were fabricated with the collusion of the media.
Although these were separate conversations both seemed quite keen to bring the subject up in order to expound there views. Goodness knows what it would take to get them to change their minds.
Where does your acquaintance think the 132 dead people have gone to? And does your other acquaintance think that 132 people is a handful or does he too think that these deaths have been invented?
As the first acquaintance claimed the whole thing is a hoax he did not accept there are any dead people. The second acquaintance argued there was one, and only one, attack which caused a small number of deaths. He believed that the other attacks, and therefore the bulk of the deaths, were fabricated with the collusion of the media.
Although these were separate conversations both seemed quite keen to bring the subject up in order to expound there views. Goodness knows what it would take to get them to change their minds.
One wonders, with this level of delusion going on, whether even seeing the bodies would change their minds.
I don't have a great problem with under-16s voting per se, but I dislike having gratuitous differences in the electorate for referendums. It risks gerrymandering in favour of a desired result.
I don't have a great problem with under-16s voting per se, but I dislike having gratuitous differences in the electorate for referendums. It risks gerrymandering in favour of a desired result.
I have a problem with the fact it was in the manifesto of Labour/LD, who were utterly trounced at the election. Not sure what gives them the right to push through their own agenda after such a loss.
Prescient observation from Newsnight a couple of weeks ago:
The government may be forced to delay the EU referendum until 2017 if it loses a parliamentary vote on the electoral franchise later this month.
David Cameron has said the in-out vote will take place by the end of 2017 but is thought to prefer a date in 2016.
But the Electoral Commission told the BBC if 16 and 17 year-olds are given the vote, the poll should be delayed by as much as 12 months to register them.
No, I think that people considered legally old enough to create human life and to take full responsibility for raising a child are old enough to vote.
The fact that 16-year olds can have sex, and produce babies, legally is more about bowing to the inevitable than considering whether they are responsible enough for it to be a good idea.
The drive to reduce teenage pregnancies reveals what society really believes about the suitability of 16 and 17 year olds as parents.
Allowing mother and child to stay together is an on-balance risk assessment rather than an acknowledgement of society accepting maturity.
A person who is a father or mother at age 16 will likely have had illegal under age sex aged 15. Parents at 16 are relatively few and far between. It's a far cry to give voting to all children aged 16.
Indeed. And part of the reason young parents are given legal custody of their children is the good of the child, not necessarily the rights of the young parent. It has to be better that young parents are part of their children's lives. There is no parallel in that to the issue of the right to vote.
Isn't it actually very different from the proposed Blair Force On which, if I recall correctly, was meant to be a dedicated aircraft bought and used solely for that purpose?
Since indyref, votes4kidz has become politically inevitable. I get that George wants revenge against the lords for tax credits, but is this really the issue to fight them on?
Isn't it actually very different from the proposed Blair Force On which, if I recall correctly, was meant to be a dedicated aircraft bought and used solely for that purpose?
Yep.
Blair
Prime Minister Tony Blair and the Queen are to get two dedicated planes to use on official trips, the BBC has learned. One is likely to be a long-haul plane with 70 seats, while a 15-seater jet will be ordered for shorter flights, BBC correspondent James Hardy says.
Cameron We have decided to adapt one of our existing Voyager aircraft so that, in addition to its primary air tanking role, it can transport Ministers and it will also be available for the Royal family to use.
Isn't it actually very different from the proposed Blair Force On which, if I recall correctly, was meant to be a dedicated aircraft bought and used solely for that purpose?
Since indyref, votes4kidz has become politically inevitable. I get that George wants revenge against the lords for tax credits, but is this really the issue to fight them on?
The Lords are there as a revising and amending chamber, and that is what they have done. To stuff the Lords with new Tory peers over such an issue would be very petty, and likely to bring the whole house into disrepute. It would be sweetly ironic if it were the Tories that abolished the lords and got rid of their own retirement home!
The Lords are certainly proving a more effective opposition than any of the rabble on the opposition benches in the Commons!
Since indyref, votes4kidz has become politically inevitable. I get that George wants revenge against the lords for tax credits, but is this really the issue to fight them on?
The Lords are there as a revising and amending chamber, and that is what they have done.
Strongly disagree. They have extended the franchise. In what way are they "revising or amending" the 2015 Conservative Manifesto that attracted 11.3 million votes? They aren't. They are behaving as if they are implementing their own parties' rejected Manifestos.
Since indyref, votes4kidz has become politically inevitable. I get that George wants revenge against the lords for tax credits, but is this really the issue to fight them on?
The Lords are certainly proving a more effective opposition than any of the rabble on the opposition benches in the Commons!
That's the worst part of it. That the tories think they can risk something as PR toxic as a f*cking private ministerial jet says all you need to know about the state of the opposition. If Burnham or Cooper were leader, CamAir would have never been on the cards.
Sorry Jeremy, you're a decent bloke, but Labour needs a leader right now.
Since indyref, votes4kidz has become politically inevitable. I get that George wants revenge against the lords for tax credits, but is this really the issue to fight them on?
The Lords are there as a revising and amending chamber, and that is what they have done.
Strongly disagree. They have extended the franchise. In what way are they "revising or amending" the 2015 Conservative Manifesto that attracted 11.3 million votes? They aren't. They are behaving as if they are implementing their own parties' rejected Manifestos.
The Commons can overturn the ammendment anf return it to the Lords if they want to do so.
Since indyref, votes4kidz has become politically inevitable. I get that George wants revenge against the lords for tax credits, but is this really the issue to fight them on?
The Lords are there as a revising and amending chamber, and that is what they have done.
Strongly disagree. They have extended the franchise. In what way are they "revising or amending" the 2015 Conservative Manifesto that attracted 11.3 million votes? They aren't. They are behaving as if they are implementing their own parties' rejected Manifestos.
The Commons can overturn the ammendment anf return it to the Lords if they want to do so.
Hunt - only 10% of hospital admissions seen by a senior doctor with 14 hours
Real stat - 79%
Why does Hunt think blatant lies are acceptable
He's probably been listening to my audiologist at Burton, who three times changed an appointment at 24 hours notice without giving a reason (and was then surprised and very angry when I told him I couldn't make the appointments) then accused me of lying about my deafness, then demanded I have an additional hearing test - my fifth - before he would consider hearing aids, and then having said it would be sorted by Christmas, said that he couldn't give a timetable for the follow-up appointment anyway.
And then claimed he was not trying to wriggle out of giving me badly-needed hearing aids because they cost too much, which remains the most unconvincing lie since Hitler said he only wanted the Sudetenland.
Booth and Lowdon walked, and Wurz had been intended to become team principal. But he has declined. Whitmarsh, also linked, has said he would decline if offered the post.
Seems to be about confidence in the owner rather than the car. Yes, it's atrocious this year. But in 2016 they get the Mercedes engine and some bits and pieces from elsewhere (I forget if it's them or Haas getting components from Williams).
The Lords have been damned silly since the election. I'd take every one who voted for this and give them a damned good thrashing with an enormo-haddock.
Since indyref, votes4kidz has become politically inevitable. I get that George wants revenge against the lords for tax credits, but is this really the issue to fight them on?
The Lords are there as a revising and amending chamber, and that is what they have done. To stuff the Lords with new Tory peers over such an issue would be very petty, and likely to bring the whole house into disrepute. It would be sweetly ironic if it were the Tories that abolished the lords and got rid of their own retirement home!
The Lords are certainly proving a more effective opposition than any of the rabble on the opposition benches in the Commons!
No, the Lords have revised nothing. If the government was proposing votes for 12 year olds and the Lords said 'no, but maybe we should let 16 year olds vote in council elections', then you might have a point. Instead the Lords are putting forward their own legislation as though they are the government.
It's only a small one. It's used for other things. It's not brand new The royals can have a go.
You really have to laugh.
You've missed the 'Security' ones then?
In light of ISIS's recent antics, it should be pretty obvious even to you.
That's even worse. If the govt is saying civil aviation is not safe enough for them, its not safe enough for us.
Rubbish. Firstly, there might not be standard flights at the right times. Then there might not be seats if the decision to go somewhere is made at short notice (can you imagine the uproar if some people are taken off a flight because the PM+entourage had to go somewhere).
Secondly, there is a more subtle aspect of security. The PM is more of a target than a 'standard' tourist.
My complaints about Blair Force One were nothing to do with the need (although two planes seemed a little overkill). It was to do with the fact they refused to replace the Royal Yacht, yet wanted their own luxury personal transport
The Lords have been damned silly since the election. I'd take every one who voted for this and give them a damned good thrashing with an enormo-haddock.
The Lords have been damned silly since the election. I'd take every one who voted for this and give them a damned good thrashing with an enormo-haddock.
It was a "damned silly" election, Mr Dancer.
Just because the Lib Dems suffered terrible at the election (something I'm quite sad about), does not mean it was a 'damned silly' election.
In fact, it sounds like you're bordering on showing contempt for the electorate. The electorate voted the wrong way, the bastards!
@PolhomeEditor: David Blunkett also says Labour leadership "if they've got any statescraft at all" should give Labour MPs a free vote on Syria bombing.
@BBCNormanS: Jeremy Corbyn needs to move from "dissident oppositionist" to leading a party of Govt says David Blunkett @BBCr4today
If "we're all in it together" is to mean anything, surely that means getting on the same flights as the rest of us.
And making us all targets?
No thanks!
That was my first thought. I would not be that thrilled to see a senior minister on my flight these days and I would speculate that this was the reason that security was even more miserable than usual.
Our department has a pretty robust plan for the strike, postponed mandatory training, delayed admin, closed a few clinics etc.
Is this the first time ever you can remember strike action by Doctors?
I only remember one NHS strike in my career in1982 and am pretty sure Drs weren't involved
The last doctors strike was in 74.
My partner went on strike with NUPE nurses in about 1988 as I recall. I have a lovely picture of her picketing.
The strike days are well chosen. Emergencies only on 1 Dec for 24 hours. All out (including emergencies from 0800 to 1700 on 8 Dec and 16th Dec.
This is fairly easy for Consultants and Staff grades to cover by the measures like I mentioned below. It will also give a picture of what the weekday service is like when more doctors are rostered on at the weekend.
Loving all the Labour acolytes wibbling on about 'Cameron's Voyager', whilst their party blows itself to pieces with a Corbyn suicide belt across every media outlet.
Booth and Lowdon walked, and Wurz had been intended to become team principal. But he has declined. Whitmarsh, also linked, has said he would decline if offered the post.
Seems to be about confidence in the owner rather than the car. Yes, it's atrocious this year. But in 2016 they get the Mercedes engine and some bits and pieces from elsewhere (I forget if it's them or Haas getting components from Williams).
I think Haas are getting engine, drivetrain and more from Ferrari. Manor are getting engine from Mercedes, and suspension and transmission parts from Williams.
Our department has a pretty robust plan for the strike, postponed mandatory training, delayed admin, closed a few clinics etc.
Is this the first time ever you can remember strike action by Doctors?
I only remember one NHS strike in my career in1982 and am pretty sure Drs weren't involved
The last doctors strike was in 74.
My partner went on strike with NUPE nurses in about 1988 as I recall. I have a lovely picture of her picketing.
The strike days are well chosen. Emergencies only on 1 Dec for 24 hours. All out (including emergencies from 0800 to 1700 on 8 Dec and 16th Dec.
This is fairly easy for Consultants and Staff grades to cover by the measures like I mentioned below. It will also give a picture of what the weekday service is like when more doctors are rostered on at the weekend.
Comments
'Thats a fair position - but would you also agree that its the job of the democratically elected house to change the franchise?'
It's a coalition of losers trying to gerrymander the electoral franchise via an unelected chamber, otherwise they can't win anything.
edited to add close bracket
Faced with two sub-optimalities - a mother too young to be ideally suited to bring up the baby, and separating the two, in defiance of natural bonds - we choose the former. Quite rightly too; however, this is completely irrelevant to the question of voting age, where such a dilemma doesn't exist.
Adoption
If you are under the age of 18, you can be adopted if you are not married or in a registered civil partnership. As a child, you will have little say over who adopts you, but you should be consulted by the adoption agency or social services department involved in the adoption.
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/relationships/children-and-young-people/young-people-and-family/
Not sure why, but found it genuinely surprising. Never occurred to me that it would be so high an age for adoption.
What does bear some relation is contract law. How can it make sense to say that a child is not old enough to enter into a contract, but is old enough to vote?
These arguments attempting to justify voting at 16 are pathetic beyond belief. The Lords have moved beyond a joke. I suppose we should not be surprised when we see it is driven by loopy LD cussedness.
Because they CAN, it is a poor argument for saying all should have the vote at 16. Personally, I'm not of sufficiently strong views to earn the title "backwoodsman" on this. But for the House of Lords to be creating legislation that was against the will of those who voted for the Conservative manifesto takes them onto very worrying ground.
Back on the 14th I noted 4 points of interest one of which was investigating Spain as a possible entrance/exit/transit route for the attack perpetrators.
Salah Abdeslam, believed to be one of the Paris triggermen, stopped then let go on the France/Belgian border is reportedly the subject of a manhunt in Spain. The police have a car registration.
More significantly the swathe of arrests and imminent foiled attacks should be a great worry to the Western & Northern European networks inspired by & directed by IS. It may suggest its time to go to ground.
It is also a worry for the rest of us, because they might do the opposite.
There is suspicion that any UK-based actors don't have the very direct links with each other that many of the runarounds in France/Germany/Benelux/Spain etc do. The UK based suspects may be their own little island network to some extent. IS in their latest video named France, the US, Australia, Germany & the UK as the targets in line. France has been hit, Germany nearly, leaving the other three.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/12003857/British-jet-may-have-been-first-target-as-Islamic-State-shows-bomb-that-brought-down-Russian-plane.html
Illegitimi non carborundum is a mock-Latin aphorism meaning "Don't let the bastards grind you down".
TBH, with advent of Wikipedia, they are more or less redundant, other than as nice bookcase-fillers...
In 1997, an American religious freak convinced 38 other people that he was an alien re-incarnation of Jesus, and they needed to evacuate the Earth by committing suicide, to be picked up by a space ship travelling in the wake of comet Hale-Bopp...
Here's one of them giving her farewell message a couple of days before she overdosed on phenobarbitol and put a plastic bag over her head. She abandoned her husband and kids to join this cult.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wNDvFdQvws
Another one of them had been expected by her childhood classmates to become POTUS, or at least State Governor...
Although these were separate conversations both seemed quite keen to bring the subject up in order to expound there views. Goodness knows what it would take to get them to change their minds.
One wonders, with this level of delusion going on, whether even seeing the bodies would change their minds.
I'll get my coat
The government may be forced to delay the EU referendum until 2017 if it loses a parliamentary vote on the electoral franchise later this month.
David Cameron has said the in-out vote will take place by the end of 2017 but is thought to prefer a date in 2016.
But the Electoral Commission told the BBC if 16 and 17 year-olds are given the vote, the poll should be delayed by as much as 12 months to register them.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34708742
Now where's that new thread... I think peter is lurking in the shadows.
Allowing mother and child to stay together is an on-balance risk assessment rather than an acknowledgement of society accepting maturity.
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/11/18/corbyn-set-to-u-turn-on-whipping-for-syria-vote/#more-20397
Suggests Parliament Act could be used to get the Act through in June 2017, with referendum then in October 2017.
Also suggests Cameron may use argument that Lab / LD are delaying the referendum - which might then be weapon get Lab / LD Peers to back down.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/18/lords-back-eu-referendum-vote-for-16--and-17-year-olds
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34864328
Blair
Prime Minister Tony Blair and the Queen are to get two dedicated planes to use on official trips, the BBC has learned.
One is likely to be a long-haul plane with 70 seats, while a 15-seater jet will be ordered for shorter flights, BBC correspondent James Hardy says.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5098126.stm
Cameron
We have decided to adapt one of our existing Voyager aircraft so that, in addition to its primary air tanking role, it can transport Ministers and it will also be available for the Royal family to use.
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQOOd2HHukgZWeREGtIcRl-lPUdGHa6NEGjdvErScZsl2P4SkU7
As time goes by one almost forgets how awful Brown was I mean hideously awful, and then EICIPM and then Jezza, I mean FFS!!!.
We've got the worlds most connected airport on parliaments doorstep.
Is first class not good enough?
The Lords are certainly proving a more effective opposition than any of the rabble on the opposition benches in the Commons!
Security..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyU6SonN6mc
It's only a small one.
It's used for other things.
It's not brand new
The royals can have a go.
You really have to laugh.
In light of ISIS's recent antics, it should be pretty obvious even to you.
Sorry Jeremy, you're a decent bloke, but Labour needs a leader right now.
F*ck off ASAP.
The Lords have been damned silly since the election.
I'd take every one who voted for this and give them a damned good thrashing with an enormo-haddock.
That'd get them in the lobbies!
The private charter bill has gone up so high, it makes financial sense to get dave his own plane.
Look! We'll SAVE money!
Real stat - 79%
Why does Hunt think blatant lies are acceptable
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/apr/24/jeremy-hunt-murdochs-bskyb-bid
Our department has a pretty robust plan for the strike, postponed mandatory training, delayed admin, closed a few clinics etc.
And then claimed he was not trying to wriggle out of giving me badly-needed hearing aids because they cost too much, which remains the most unconvincing lie since Hitler said he only wanted the Sudetenland.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/34860589
Booth and Lowdon walked, and Wurz had been intended to become team principal. But he has declined. Whitmarsh, also linked, has said he would decline if offered the post.
Seems to be about confidence in the owner rather than the car. Yes, it's atrocious this year. But in 2016 they get the Mercedes engine and some bits and pieces from elsewhere (I forget if it's them or Haas getting components from Williams).
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/nov/18/jeremy-hunt-statement-on-nhs-weekend-hospital-care-is-misleading-experts-warn
Blair wanted a small one.
All to himself (and the queen, when she (rarely) travels) - only for VIP transport.
Secondly, there is a more subtle aspect of security. The PM is more of a target than a 'standard' tourist.
My complaints about Blair Force One were nothing to do with the need (although two planes seemed a little overkill). It was to do with the fact they refused to replace the Royal Yacht, yet wanted their own luxury personal transport
Blair really saw himself as the 'new' royalty.
No thanks!
I only remember one NHS strike in my career in1982 and am pretty sure Drs weren't involved
In fact, it sounds like you're bordering on showing contempt for the electorate. The electorate voted the wrong way, the bastards!
I bet most of the 10% are admitted after 8pm on a Sunday too...
@BBCNormanS: Jeremy Corbyn needs to move from "dissident oppositionist" to leading a party of Govt says David Blunkett @BBCr4today
My partner went on strike with NUPE nurses in about 1988 as I recall. I have a lovely picture of her picketing.
The strike days are well chosen. Emergencies only on 1 Dec for 24 hours. All out (including emergencies from 0800 to 1700 on 8 Dec and 16th Dec.
This is fairly easy for Consultants and Staff grades to cover by the measures like I mentioned below. It will also give a picture of what the weekday service is like when more doctors are rostered on at the weekend.